High Court · 2025

Gatram Venkateshwara Rao, S/o Shri Gopal Krishna Murthy, Aged. 53 years, occ. Government Servanr ilo. r.rolzi',' pu'#Jriorff Apartment, Atwyn Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-7 2. -irri AND ...PETITIONER The State Public lnformatinn O-ffice_r, O/o the Dy Supt. of police, ACB, ACB. Ranga reddy Ra n ge, 3rd noor,-eirrioit6,i d ;;;d ; j.[;pa I ty, Hyde ra bad 500 ...RESPONDENT Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass the forowing directions/orders. - a) prease set aside the impugned orders dated 'r 1 Jury 2023 passed in the first appear and direct the officiar Respondent No. 1 to provide the information sought under the RTr apprication dated 17 Apnr 2o23 forthwith in the interest of justice, rN THE Alternate. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI AADESH VARMA counsel for the Respondent: Gp FoR TNFORMATTON TEcHNoLoGy The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.35331 of 2o24 ORDER: Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned- Government Pleader for Information Technologr and RTI appearing for the sole respondent, and perused the record.

2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents-authorities in issuing the impugned order, dt.ll.OZ .2023 in Apireal No.O1l01"t AA/RTl/TS/2023, whereby his request to furnish information, uide application dt. 17.O4.2O23, was rejected.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had made an application seeking information under RTI Act in connection with Cr.No.O2 / RC"l / 2Ol9; that the information sought for by him in connection with the crime, is required to prove his non-involvement in the said crime; that the investigation in to the above crime has been completed and charge sheet has been filed; that on filing of charge sheet, there is no scope for any further investigation; t.hat on 2 ,{ filing of charge sheet CC number has also been issued by the concerned Court uide CC'No.4ll2O2O; and that the Public Information Officer, instead of furnishing the information as sought for, had erroneously rejected the application by placing reliance on provisions under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act')'

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents seeks for sustaining the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in Cr.No.02/RCT/2019, which, on completion of investigation and on filing of charge sheet, is numbered as CC.No.41 of 2O2O and is pending trial' Irarned Government Pleader would further submit

5. that in the course of investigation, the authorities have obtained call data record pertaining to mobile number 92465 22324 for the period 05.01 '2019 to 23'Ol'2019' and though. the same forms part of the case record' the said informationcannotbefurnishedtothepetitioner,sincethe case is Pending trial. 3

6. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that if t he aforesaid information is furnished to the petitioner, there is every possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses, thereby affecting the course of

7. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

8. Section 8 of the Act deals with exemption from disclosure. Clause (h) of sub-Section (1) of Section g of the Act deals with one of the exemptions, which reads as under: "(h) information which utould imped e the process of inuestigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;"

9. Though in terms of Section 6 of the Act, when an application is made, the public Information Oflir:er or the Pirst Appellate Authority or the Second Appellate Authority is required to furnish the information, the exemption provided under Section 8 of the Act, exempts the information from being provided, and one of such \_ 4 r exemption is relating to information, which in the view of the Officer would impede the process of investigation/ apprehension/ prosecution of offenders. '

10. Though it has been vehementiy contended on behalf of the petitioner that since, the investigation has been completed, charge sheet having been laid in Cr.No.O2/RCT 12019 and being numbered as CC.No.41/2020, ttre exemption would not stand attracted, it is to be seen that the exemption is not only applicable where the process of investigation is pending, but if the Public Information Officer is of the view that the same would impede the prosecution of offenders, such information need not be furnished.

11. In the facts of the present case, since, the petitioner is arrayed'as an accused in CC.No.4l of 2020, the Public Information Offrcer is of the view that furnishing of the information as sought for by the petitioner would result in the petitioner, who is an accused, influencing the witnesses, thereby impeding the prosecution of offenders' 5

12. Since. the scope of exemption provided under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act has wider import, the claim ol the petitioner that since, the investigation having been completed in the crime registered against him, he is entitled to be furnished with the information sought for by him, does not appea-l to this Court for being accepted.

13. In vieu, of the above, this Court is of the vierv that the impugned order of rejection does not suffer from any infirmitv or illegality, for being interfered with by this Court.

14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

15. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall strLnd closed. //TRUE COPY// to1. on" 99 t9 S!3?dg,sh Varma, Advocate to?lJfi i. i;; ddji" cp t"' lnformation rechnolosv' Hig - i"ringlnu, at HYderabad [OUT] 3. Two CD CoPies Y*' TJ LS SD/.T. JAYASREE DEPI,ITY REGISTRAR SE,CTION OFFICER corrt tor the state of HIGH COURT DATED:0910412025 ?- L.q 1 /) ORDER WP.No.35331 of 2024 i4 \- \- (A s W; .t \ v t a <J ! DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Grt('a fr"